"Where Is Our Radical Youth?" Washington Post Op Ed

[GeneJackit]

I have a point to retort that i think ties itself well to your contention, and that is that "focusing on the family", in US culture, no longer means an extended system of familial relationships stemming from parents, to grand parents, to cousins, to aunts and even the most distant. You no longer live close to them and i bet most of us no longer possess those strong connections that much older generations used to have with their extended families.

What we now consider a family is essentially a partitioned element of what was once a family. It is simply now a man and a woman and perhaps one or two children, whereas a family could live in the same area composing of even second cousins. What do our youth most desire now? To help the family and assist it? Or to become independent of their families and leave? What is a common insult on the internet and on these forums? We make fun of the image of someone living in their parent's basement. Ignoring the basement part as an exaggeration, it represents to me a radical change in view from the extended family as a positive, to the extended family as a negative and hindrance to success and independence. Then comes my second point, whom do you think is less introverted and more concerned with his world, someone who prefers the company of a large family enclave, or someone who's vision of a family is a wife and two kids? I consider that one of these represents a much more segregated mentality.

Would you see this radical change as a good thing? I think this is a very strong argument in regards to problems we are having today...but what does it stem from? Does it come from the points you made in your last post, like the pop culture issues people deal with, or from somewhere else. I think I used family as too literal of a sense...b/c it does extend to one's own community, but thinking about it...who really cares about their neighborhood, town, county issues anyways? Younger people now-a-days (look at me, sounding like my grandpa) are too dependent...they want freedom from family, but 90% dont know how to use it. Here is a thought mulling over...do we OWE anything to the community at large? I think "radical" people would argue that we do, and hence the clamouring for change and pie in the sky hope for certain issues...but we really are a pragmatic society, so I see those people and I dont sAY, "Wow thats great that they are getting involved." I would say "wow, they are not gonna succeed." Im sure that has a lot to do w/ pessimism...but I think most of it is grounded in facts


EDIT: Wow, i guess it just gets all boiled down to apathy...simple enough lol

[GeneJackit]

Gene,

I will bite. How are we left, exactly? Are you talking about Bush/Obama nationalizing the means of production in this country? Or are you talking about socially left?

Hey, im not trying to bait anyone into an argument

1) I would say the nationalizing trend is the crux

2) I think we are socially left...permissive society, but i dont disagree w/ this portion...Im libertarian when it comes to social activities

Its (1) that really chaps my ass...

[Kuya]

Would you see this radical change as a good thing? I think this is a very strong argument in regards to problems we are having today...but what does it stem from? Does it come from the points you made in your last post, like the pop culture issues people deal with, or from somewhere else. I think I used family as too literal of a sense...b/c it does extend to one's own community, but thinking about it...who really cares about their neighborhood, town, county issues anyways? Younger people now-a-days (look at me, sounding like my grandpa) are too dependent...they want freedom from family, but 90% dont know how to use it. Here is a thought mulling over...do we OWE anything to the community at large? I think "radical" people would argue that we do, and hence the clamouring for change and pie in the sky hope for certain issues...but we really are a pragmatic society, so I see those people and I dont sAY, "Wow thats great that they are getting involved." I would say "wow, they are not gonna succeed." Im sure that has a lot to do w/ pessimism...but I think most of it is grounded in facts

The change towards more introverted forms of life are in part due to a sense of hopelessness in terms of the world around oneself. Another issue is perhaps that we've allowed commercialization to go too rampant, but some would say that you can't control it nor is it moral to do so regardless of what or how it harms. A way to combat this sense of apathy is to give people more control over their government and emphasize community aspects over get rich quick and become famous mentality.

I'd say you owe a lot to society, the community as a whole, because without it you wouldn't exist, nor physically nor as the person you are now. A society makes us, we don't create ourselves. And as for the "radical" comment, well the radicals in this case would be the ancient Greeks, i suppose, if it really is that radical to emphasize community more.

edit: you meant independent, right?

[GeneJackit]

The change towards more introverted forms of life are in part due to a sense of hopelessness in terms of the world around oneself. Another issue is perhaps that we've allowed commercialization to go too rampant, but some would say that you can't control it nor is it moral to do so regardless of what or how it harms. A way to combat this sense of apathy is to give people more control over their government and emphasize community aspects over get rich quick and become famous mentality.

I'd say you owe a lot to society, the community as a whole, because without it you wouldn't exist, nor physically nor as the person you are now. A society makes us, we don't create ourselves. And as for the "radical" comment, well the radicals in this case would be the ancient Greeks, i suppose, if it really is that radical to emphasize community more.

edit: you meant independent, right?

I think there is a lot more hopelessness out there now, and that is only gonna get worse as the economy turns. I'm sorry, but i do disagree about the way to combat apathy is give more control over the govt...this is really a Catch-22 b/c the only way we get more control over govt is by give the govt more control lol. I think the way we combat apathy would be to get rid of the big brother aspect of gov't and let people live the lives they want. I mean, trying to get anything done in the USA is one huge fucking hassle...the govt from the town on up have their tentacles in everything you do...we really arent free in our free society...it is really more of an illusion than anything else

Im with you on the whole commercialism point. I cant get on the bandwagon of bashing some nebulous "commercialism" i think that is too easy.Commercialism is only reacting to our own wants and needs...i dont think it is pro-active at all

We need to optimize our freedom, and I think the rest will fall in line

[Kuya]

I think there is a lot more hopelessness out there now, and that is only gonna get worse as the economy turns. I'm sorry, but i do disagree about the way to combat apathy is give more control over the govt...this is really a Catch-22 b/c the only way we get more control over govt is by give the govt more control lol. I think the way we combat apathy would be to get rid of the big brother aspect of gov't and let people live the lives they want. I mean, trying to get anything done in the USA is one huge fucking hassle...the govt from the town on up have their tentacles in everything you do...we really arent free in our free society...it is really more of an illusion than anything else

Im with you on the whole commercialism point. I cant get on the bandwagon of bashing some nebulous "commercialism" i think that is too easy.Commercialism is only reacting to our own wants and needs...i dont think it is pro-active at all

We need to optimize our freedom, and I think the rest will fall in line

What you're essentially doing is skirting the issue. You can't eliminate hopelessness in the face of a government that is detached from its people by saying that... the government should be detached from its people. That doesn't make sense. Trying to act like the government doesn't exist only makes it easier for it to get corrupted, like acting like you can just leave your child be and suppose that he won't indulge in bad behaviour. I don't see how having people be more active in government means giving the government more control, when it is the people themselves who watch over it. If you want liberty, then the price you pay is vigilance, and trying to "downsize" the government's control is essentially trying to avoid the vigilance part so you can excess in your liberty. That's not the way it should, nor is it the way it does work. (privatizing parts the government doesn't make it weaker, it just makes it harder to control). Your conclusion that having more people be active in government gives it more power doesn't really follow, since there's no way people would be unanimous in its exercise without being led astray.

You are never free, even when you think you are, because nothing you do comes without the influence of something else. Which ties into your optimizing freedom comment as in on itself an illusion and impossible. Not only does freedom have its limits before it transforms itself into tyranny, but everytime the word freedom is used now a days it usually comes from the mouth of someone whose actions denote everything but liberty. Liberty shouldn't mean deciding what colour ipod i want today, but actually having a voice and being able to combat in that which represents the very battleground for human ideology, and that place is in the government. You technically agreed with me in that as government grows more complex, people feel more detached and ignored by it, but the solution isn't to ignore it.

As far as commercialism, either we create methods of combating what seems to be corrupting us, or we limit how commercialism is used. I think a libertarian would rather the former.

[Kuya]

What you and me are doing right now, disagreeing, and possibly never ever agreeing on anything important, is exactly what limits the power of government. Not making it weaker, but promoting political conflict amongst a multitude of ideals. Destroying government is impossible, limiting government is impossible, but halting it in constant debate is ideal, as, in my opinion, government isn't a force of change, but it is what decides our fate as a society. So the way to stop excess is to trap the government in th endless debate of human ideology. Not only do you stop the excess, you actually bring back participation and activity in one's community, which fights away apathy.

[Akumaronin]

Just going to throw this out there, but seriously.

I'm too busy going to classes, studying my ass off, doing homework, and working 40-45 hours a week to protest. Debating would be fine and dandy if there was anybody worth a damn to debate within my peer group. Honestly, my father gives more scintillating conversation than anyone I've met at school so far. I've stayed up until 1 AM discussing politics, the gubment, price of rice in China, etc. with him.

So perhaps the reason why nobody is protesting or rushing out and really being avid about societal change is because they're fucking slammed. There's no draft going on that causes people to push themselves into college in order to save themselves. Right now, you go to college because you want to, not because it'll save you from getting shot at in the military.

:And I know 40-45 hours a week doesn't sound that bad, but it's still pretty soul crushing to get home at 11 PM 3/5 nights a week, when I wake up at 6 AM:

[Rammses]

Space travel is the solution.

[Elesirdur]

I'll preface my comments by saying that I can only refer to my situation as a Canadian and the state of society in Canada since I have not lived in the US or any other nation.

I had a similar discussion with my girlfriend after watching Milk when she wondered out loud why mass demonstrations don't take place anymore. Sure there are protests the like all the time in our city (the provincial capital of BC) about logging, health care, child care, first nations rights/lands, the environment, fishing, and all sorts of things - but nobody really cares anymore. The issue certainly isn't that the police or the state is more authoritarian and actively represses or would respond harshly to a protest or demonstration.

The simple answer is that nobody, both the public and the elected officials, really cares anymore and those in power can easily overlook protests as futile efforts. The major difference between the 60s and 70s, when public demonstrations reached their zenith in post-war North America, is that all those big things people got pissed off about back then have been "fixed" and those minorities and disadvantaged now have legal protection and equal status under the law.

Women, non-Caucasian persons, gays/lesbians/bisexuals/transexuals; they are all protected under the law. Even here in BC, where outstanding First Nations land claims issues were unresolved for more than 100 years, changes have come into force that provide a legal mechanism to recognize traditional land claims for reconciliation and to enact treaties with the Crown. Racism and gender/sexuality biases still exist sure, but there's protection.

Now the protests are about some pretty small and specific things, and politicians know that they can be pragmatic and crunch the numbers - knowing that not enough people in their riding are pissed off enough to get them or the government unelected. (Or to form a new gov't if they're in opposition.) Is this right? Not really, but it's certainly not wrong, only rather unethical.

The thing is that our modern youth and society as a whole has very little to be radical about because we've got it so damn good, thanks to the radicalism and political pressure of past generations. Canadians don't march the streets screaming about health care, even though they are concerned about the nuances of the system. The gay marriage issue saw some pretty serious demonstrations back over the last decade or so, but now that it's law in Canada and its provinces, there's not much to march over. (Gay pride parades in Canada's big cities are kind of strange these days. Sure it's fun and whimsical, but they're not really freaking anybody out anymore who lives in the cities.) People might want to protest over the environment, but the environment is so protected you would be marching over such small things in the law. Unless things take a turn for the very worse, think V For Vendetta Norsefire worse, protests will continue to be staged by hyper-radical groups focused on intensely special interests which will alienate the larger population.

[Anomander]

Just going to throw this out there, but seriously.

I'm too busy going to classes, studying my ass off, doing homework, and working 40-45 hours a week to protest. Debating would be fine and dandy if there was anybody worth a damn to debate within my peer group. Honestly, my father gives more scintillating conversation than anyone I've met at school so far. I've stayed up until 1 AM discussing politics, the gubment, price of rice in China, etc. with him.

So perhaps the reason why nobody is protesting or rushing out and really being avid about societal change is because they're fucking slammed. There's no draft going on that causes people to push themselves into college in order to save themselves. Right now, you go to college because you want to, not because it'll save you from getting shot at in the military.

:And I know 40-45 hours a week doesn't sound that bad, but it's still pretty soul crushing to get home at 11 PM 3/5 nights a week, when I wake up at 6 AM:

QFT. I'm in my fourth year of college, and I also work part time. I have many huge term projects that demand lots of attention. Between that, my gf, some FFXI here and there (gotta have some time to unwind), and friends, there's not a lot of time to really do much. As you said, we are fucking slammed. Sure, I'll debate politics with a few of my more intelligent friends, but they generally have the same views as me. Our religion debates are far more thought provoking tbh. Hell, I voted, and yeah the state of the country/economy is pretty bleak looking, but I just don't have much time at all to worry about that.

[pohibaba]

Turn on to politics, or politics will turn on you.

The government is going to continue to run your life whether you step up to have your opinion heard or not. Might as well at least have a say in how your life will be run.

[Halleberry]

QFT. I'm in my fourth year of college, and I also work part time. I have many huge term projects that demand lots of attention. Between that, my gf, some FFXI here and there (gotta have some time to unwind), and friends, there's not a lot of time to really do much. As you said, we are fucking slammed. Sure, I'll debate politics with a few of my more intelligent friends, but they generally have the same views as me. Our religion debates are far more thought provoking tbh. Hell, I voted, and yeah the state of the country/economy is pretty bleak looking, but I just don't have much time at all to worry about that.

^All of that, plus what Guartz said about the gov't puttin lazy juice in the water. We are chronically overwhelmed and depressed. Everyone has a shit load of stuff to do, and not enough time to do it. Most people hate their jobs and get selfish once they get off of work. I feel exactly like Akumarionin, working 60hrs a week, studying and obligations to keep friends and family from thinking I'm a dick drains me. When I get home, I don't want to think about how fucked up the world is, or how broke I am, and how things don't look much brighter for me in the future. I rather take a few tokes and get lost in a video game for a couple of hours and slowly start working on things I need to do for myself. But i do find time to post and rant, and stay alert to what the communities I care about feel.

I also think that all this blogging and online networking is useful, but does it actually accomplish anything? Are you presenting your thoughts to vent or to get the ball rolling? I think a lot of people just post for therapy and if shit were to hit the fan they would just bitch about it online and hide. I definitely do see a lot of people capitalizing on the networks and using them to help fight their causes.

I don't know man, this online gen at least has people thinking, but thinking ain't enough, you gotta have some action to go with it.

[Kuya]

I'll preface my comments by saying that I can only refer to my situation as a Canadian and the state of society in Canada since I have not lived in the US or any other nation.

I had a similar discussion with my girlfriend after watching Milk when she wondered out loud why mass demonstrations don't take place anymore. Sure there are protests the like all the time in our city (the provincial capital of BC) about logging, health care, child care, first nations rights/lands, the environment, fishing, and all sorts of things - but nobody really cares anymore. The issue certainly isn't that the police or the state is more authoritarian and actively represses or would respond harshly to a protest or demonstration.

The simple answer is that nobody, both the public and the elected officials, really cares anymore and those in power can easily overlook protests as futile efforts. The major difference between the 60s and 70s, when public demonstrations reached their zenith in post-war North America, is that all those big things people got pissed off about back then have been "fixed" and those minorities and disadvantaged now have legal protection and equal status under the law.

Women, non-Caucasian persons, gays/lesbians/bisexuals/transexuals; they are all protected under the law. Even here in BC, where outstanding First Nations land claims issues were unresolved for more than 100 years, changes have come into force that provide a legal mechanism to recognize traditional land claims for reconciliation and to enact treaties with the Crown. Racism and gender/sexuality biases still exist sure, but there's protection.

Now the protests are about some pretty small and specific things, and politicians know that they can be pragmatic and crunch the numbers - knowing that not enough people in their riding are pissed off enough to get them or the government unelected. (Or to form a new gov't if they're in opposition.) Is this right? Not really, but it's certainly not wrong, only rather unethical.

The thing is that our modern youth and society as a whole has very little to be radical about because we've got it so damn good, thanks to the radicalism and political pressure of past generations. Canadians don't march the streets screaming about health care, even though they are concerned about the nuances of the system. The gay marriage issue saw some pretty serious demonstrations back over the last decade or so, but now that it's law in Canada and its provinces, there's not much to march over. (Gay pride parades in Canada's big cities are kind of strange these days. Sure it's fun and whimsical, but they're not really freaking anybody out anymore who lives in the cities.) People might want to protest over the environment, but the environment is so protected you would be marching over such small things in the law. Unless things take a turn for the very worse, think V For Vendetta Norsefire worse, protests will continue to be staged by hyper-radical groups focused on intensely special interests which will alienate the larger population.

What you're saying worries me. Though things might be different in Canada, if people see it the way you say they do, then things, even if they're as bad as they are now, won't change. I know things in PR are terrible, and the situation is fragile in the US. Worst of all, people don't seem like they're satisfied, they seem like they're too busy.

[Beckwin]

this is the legacy of Nixon/Reagan.

[Altariel]

There was another UCLA study like 3-4 years ago that showed something like 75% of the colleges in this country have professors that teach Marx as a credible political theory.

You don't cite the study but you think it was from some number of years ago with a approximate percentage listed but you're certain of the conclusions it drew?

I rather doubt that whatever this study focused on said much useful about the state of liberal or conservative activism on colleges today. This sounds as if you are conflating teaching about Marx with an overall advocacy of his theories. In fact, any reputable college should have courses which cover Marx. His writings did afterall play a pretty important role in the course of human history over the last century and a half. In fact, if you've flown through an airport (probably government owned), rode a bus (probably government owned), paid into social security check, or any number of other things you have experienced socialism right here in modern America.

Even if you want to talk about individual educators, you need to consider that the teaching staff at major university is HUGE. Given that large groups of people will certainly have very diverse opinions, many college staffs probably include professors that are advocates of Communism. Many also probably have others that worship Adam Smith. That doesn't mean in any way that one educator's views are reflective of the university culture overall. You also cannot justify making a leap that a person cannot teach a course without their personal views interfering with the course material itself. I have no doubt that there are right-wing Smith fanatics that can teach The Communist Manifesto and left-wing Marx fanatics that can teach The Wealth of Nations.

[Nystul]

Ok, I agree...democrat =/= radical...didnt mean it in a disparaging way. But, i think it is more than fair to say that what they are proposing to solve our problems are vastly different that what usually goes on...It is shifting our nation to more like an EU democratic socialist nation....Personally, I think that is God Awful, and I want to govt out of my life as much as possible, but hey, we are a nation of voters and if thats what people want they'll vote it in

I'd argue that the Bush administration was more radical than the Obama one is or will be. Largely because they did more to shift the middle than any administration in some time. Radical does not mean leftist. Radical means far from the collective center.


also, I wonder what the best selling campus books in the 70's were like...whether they varied much from the overall population.

[Wintermute]

I also think that all this blogging and online networking is useful, but does it actually accomplish anything? Are you presenting your thoughts to vent or to get the ball rolling? I think a lot of people just post for therapy and if shit were to hit the fan they would just bitch about it online and hide. I definitely do see a lot of people capitalizing on the networks and using them to help fight their causes.

I don't know man, this online gen at least has people thinking, but thinking ain't enough, you gotta have some action to go with it.

I love all the groups I see now on Social Sites, all those "Join group x if you think y needs to be changed".
I get that you need a starting point but building numbers online is worthless since these groups never take any action. What's the point of complaining about something in the hundreds if you're not prepared to do anything?

I think the reason you don't see people with the same drive nowadays is because no one wants to get their hands dirty. I always get the feeling that people go "something needs to change QQ" as opposed to "we're going to change things".

I suppose people are afraid of crossing the line nowadays.

[Araelus]

Lots of salient information to chew on. Hmm, what to turn to first?

You are never free, even when you think you are, because nothing you do comes without the influence of something else. Which ties into your optimizing freedom comment as in on itself an illusion and impossible. Not only does freedom have its limits before it transforms itself into tyranny, but every time the word freedom is used now a days it usually comes from the mouth of someone whose actions denote everything but liberty. Liberty shouldn't mean deciding what colour ipod i want today, but actually having a voice and being able to combat in that which represents the very battleground for human ideology, and that place is in the government. You technically agreed with me in that as government grows more complex, people feel more detached and ignored by it, but the solution isn't to ignore it.

(emphasis mine)

I wanted to bring this up again because Kuya points out something most everyone else I know doesn't agree with. I think it's spot-on.

Most people tell me, if pressed, that freedom is "doing whatever I want". But that's not true. (That's impossible!) No-one, even the obscenely powerful, can do just anything they want to. Kuya is pointing that out, I think, when he says "you are never free..."

Yet human beings yearn for freedom. We don't want to be told that something which is considered a good in and of itself can never be had. To avoid cognitive dissonance, let's consider that maybe "do whatever" is the wrong definition of freedom.

In my experience, it turns out that freedom is not "being able to do whatever you want." Freedom is having the right kind of options open to you. What are the consequences of this definition?

The negative part about this is that where you live, when you live, and what kind of choices you made in the past all directly affect your current options.

The positive part about this is that such a freedom is achievable, and progress towards it is measurable.

Those poor peasant saps in Medieval Europe basically had no options at all besides the raw deal they got dealt. They didn't know enough to do the whole "help, help, I'm being repressed!" shtick if they had a bad ruler, and human nature means if you give someone power they tend to twist up fast.

Nowadays we have all kinds of luxury even the kings back then couldn't dream of, and if they could, they still didn't have refrigeration and antibiotics. No amount of power was going to allow Oliver Cromwell to kick back and fly from London to Brobdingnag in an hour. They didn't have access to a global (albeit blocked regionally) network of information (90% of which is drek) nor an ease of powering the machines to access it.

Yet everyone still has less than absolute power or control over their own lives. Part of the social problems and the reason depression continues to spread is that people want to be "free to do whatever" while at the same time they're human beings. It's endemic to the human condition to be limited. We're not going to acquire total control. We're going to be dissatisfied if that's the goal.

We can, however, work towards having the right kind of options. What do I mean by this?

Different cultures have different value systems, but outside of the anthropology classroom I can't espouse relativistic thinking. In my view, people need to be able to consider how they want to live, express their actual views, engage in meaningful discourse with others who, thankfully, disagree with them, and otherwise go about their lives in a considered way.

There's other stuff here to talk about like the (arguably?) pernicious effect of social networking sites compared to real world interaction, but my posts are too long so I'll wait for someone else to say something. Cheers.

[Kuya]

^Completely agree and thanks for fleshing out my point.

[Illek♫]

edit: I also recall the taoiseach of Ireland commenting on how people seem to also have grown nonchalant at human rights abuses worldwide.

fify ^^